Camelot believes that if it loses its National Lottery license, it will cease to exist

Camelot believes that if it loses its National Lottery license, it will cease to exist

According to the High Court, lottery company Camelot claims it will cease to exist if the license to perform the draw is given to Czech-owned newcomer Allwyn Entertainment.

The Gambling Commission awarded Allwyn the fourth national lottery license as the “preferred bidder” earlier this year, prompting a legal challenge from Camelot UK Ltd.

After winning the National Lottery license competition in August 2020, the regulator insists that Allwyn be granted the license.

The regulator has filed an application to ‘remove the automatic suspension,’ which prevents Allwyn from receiving the final award during a two-day ‘balance of convenience’ hearing.

Allwyn can proceed with its proposal to take over the lottery by February 2024 if the ban is lifted.

After competing with Canadian-owned Camelot, Italy’s Sisal, and media mogul Richard Desmond, Europe’s largest operator, formerly known as Sazka, has fended off three challengers to administer the draw.

The Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus all have lotteries run by the business.

Camelot UK was a Special Vehicle Company (SPV) created up expressly to handle the UK National Lottery in 1994, according to Sarah Hannaford, QC, representing the Gambling Commission.

‘The license it has obtained only allows it to carry out the UK National Lottery and related operations provided there is consent,’ the attorney explained.

Ms Hannaford said that losing contracts, like Camelot UK did, is a “risk” of working with a government agency like the Gambling Commission.

‘Setting yourself up as an SPV and then claiming an existential threat does not, in my opinion, work as a matter of law.’

‘Camelot UK made the decision to operate in this manner, and it was entirely predictable that they would lose a contract.’

She claimed that the present license holder’s ‘sole legal loss’ was a loss of profit, and that damages were ‘obviously’ an adequate remedy for that loss.